241

p Creative method is a specific artistic category. Art is set apart from other phenomena not only because it has its own particular subject of reflection, but also by the character of its reproduction of phenomena from the real world. However, the artist’s creative, or artistic method does not only find expression in the fact that, unlike the method of scientific cognition, it leads the artist to reflect the real world in its aesthetic particularity by means of artistic images.

p Imagery is not a method of artistic creativity, but a specific form for the reflection of reality in art. It is a form which is universal, typical of the art of all ages and all people, and of various trends in art. With reference to literature Jan Parandowski, the Polish scholar, noted with good reason that everything in the literary arts can change except expression of thoughts through images. The image, according to him, is the essential element of poetry, perhaps the only one which nothing can threaten, neither time, nor poetic fashions. Trends and currents change, subjects and plots, motifs and moods, conventions that determine choices of words and versification patterns, yet the image remains permanent whether in its direct form, in metaphor or simile. Images are the lifeblood of poetry.  [241•*  Moreover this applies to all art forms.

p Artistic method is a concrete historical category. At various periods in the development of art, or even during 242 one and the same era, various trends with regard to creative method have proceeded in different directions. Any creative method of course will reflect the general laws of artistic development, but each one is remarkable in that it sheds its own particular light on the central issues of creativity, different from that stemming from other methods. Each creative method offers its own solution for the question as to which are the most important concerns of art, which phenomena of real life should be reproduced in art, for the question as to the nature of artistic generalisations, the means of expression, the aims of art, the purpose of artistic creation, which Stanislavsky termed the “super-super-objective”. Artistic method is the sum of creative principles, from which an artist starts out in the process of selection, generalisation and portrayal of phenomena and facts drawn from life in the images of art. However, it is not merely a "sum of principles" in the form of abstract logical definitions, or strictly conceptual descriptions. Artistic method which possesses methodological significance for any type of creative activity is also a tangible aesthetic entity, which in relation to the material incorporated in art provides a normative criterion and is also a means of concrete universalisation. Yet it goes without saying that general theoretical and conceptual definition is essential: this type of definition has enabled us to establish analytically the dividing lines between various artistic trends and lines of artistic thought and the method intrinsic to each throughout the history of art, as for example between the methods of Classicism, Romanticism and Realism. Artistic method—and this particular definition enables us to draw a clear distinction between artistic method and artistic style—constitutes a specific type of approach to the subject of art, to the reflected reality, for which it provides the artistic analogy; style on the other hand constitutes a system or principle for the organisation of meaningful form, the organisation of artistic expression. Method divorced from style or an individual manner of creation does not exist, yet manner or style outside method do not exist either. It is clear 243 that method is to style, and style to manner what the general is to the particular and the particular to the unique. Method is a wider concept than style, and an artist’s individual manner of creation, his particular creative hand is a concept narrower still.

p Elaboration of the category of artistic method is a task of prime importance for Marxist aestheticians and art historians. Indicative of this importance is the constant stream of new works in this field, and the search for new approaches to the investigation of this or that aspect of the question. In this connection it is useful to analyse the position adopted by Soviet aesthetician Boris Reizov in his article in Voprosy Literatury (No. 1, 1957). The author came out against classification of individual works of art as representing specific trends or creative methods, since the actual concepts of method and trend are, in his eyes, no more than an empty abstraction bereft of real concrete and historical content. From his point of view only one thing really exists and that is the work of art. He writes: "Balzac is a realist when he depicts Gobseek, a revolutionary romantic when he depicts a Republican revolutionary, and a reactionary romantic when he extols for example the ’country doctor’ or the ’village priest’ (in the novels of the same name) or the legitimiste Daniel d’Artez, for such characters are after all obsolescent!

p “It would therefore appear to follow that in one and the same man’s work, and even within a single novel, the methods of realism, reactionary romanticism and revolutionary romanticism can be found. What does this imply? It implies that typological definitions of actual historical literary trends naturally and inevitably lead to absurdities, since each in itself cannot measure up to reality." Naturally method and trend do not exist in a vacuum outside works of art just as, for example, a fruit cannot exist which is not an apple or a pear, etc. Yet the science concerned with living Nature does not begin when the existence of an apple is established, but only when the concept of a biological species takes shape. The science 244 of art, in its turn, also requires typological investigation of the phenomena intrinsic to the artistic process, a truly scientific approach to art. Of course there are major differences between individual artists, who represent one and the same trend, and even in the work of one and the same artist, as is justly pointed out by Reizov: often preoccupation with various creative principles is to be observed in different works by the same artist and this fact always demands due consideration. Yet this is no reason why we should adopt an anti-typological approach to the study of art. On the contrary, general features should always be singled out in the particular. When study of a work of art goes no further than acknowledgement of its existence and investigation of its individualised features, while no typological aspects are singled out and it is not ascribed to any particular school or method, this leads to a rejection of the dialectic of the general and the particular, to aesthetic nominalism. Wide though the differences may be between such artists as Stendhal and Balzac, Tolstoy and Gogol, Repin and Kramskoi, Tchaikovsky and Moussorgsky, all these artists used as their creative basis one and the same realist method.

p In the wide epistemological sense the demand for truthful depiction of reality, a correspondence between art and life lies at the basis of realist method. However, this definition of it is too general, and for a more concrete description of the essence of the realist method further precision is required. The demand for truth has after all been put forward not only by adherents of the realist method, but also by followers of other creative methods and trends, such as Classicism and Romanticism, and more recently Naturalism. Yet the concept "artistic truth" has not only been interpreted by artists of various trends in many different ways, but has sometimes been lent contrasting, if not opposed, meanings.

p Realistic presentation of the truth is poles apart not only from abstract theories, subjectivism and various manifestations of formalism, but also from any naturalist inventory of facts. This is understandable, for naturalism 245 is after all not an inferior variety of realism, but merely the reverse side of formalism.

p Truth and truthfulness in realist art demand not precision in external description, but that the image correspond to the inner essence of what is being depicted. Neither stark externals nor subjectivity run wild is needed, but reality itself, in its essential manifestations lent idea-content and aesthetic significance by the artist, whose world outlook is shaped by the concrete historical conditions of the life of the people. These are the basic principles of a realistic interpretation of truth.  [245•*  The role of truth in realist art was elucidated in Engels’ well-known definition: "Realism .. . implies, besides truth of detail, the truth in reproduction of typical characters under typical circumstances.”  [245•**  Realist method is characterised by the ability to penetrate profoundly the significant aspects of the real world; it presupposes a wide grasp of life, a truthful representation of "typical characters under typical circumstances" and concrete expression. Realist art is an artistic analogy for life itself. This is why the realist method demands of the artist that he focus his attention on reality, this is why it helps him to depict life truthfully, sometimes even flying in the face of his subjective likes and dislikes. The impact of the realist method in the history of art has often made itself felt in that it has helped artists to a large extent to overcome class limitations and despite their class prejudices to create profound, accurate and truthful pictures of life. It was in this very connection that Engels spoke of realism’s great victory in the work of Balzac, who found himself compelled, despite his political prejudices if not only to appreciate the inevitability of the fall of his beloved aristocrats, but also to depict them as people unworthy of a better fate.

p It is important to distinguish between realism as a 246 creative method, typical of a specific historical trend in art, and realism as a feature of truthful reflection of life to be found in all true art. In this last respect realism is part of the very nature of artistic creation.

p The question of realism represents one of the most important questions in aesthetics and the theory of art. At present it is the subject of fierce ideological controversy. The question of realism is now a regular battlefield. In reactionary aesthetic writings realism has been subjected to bitter attack. All manner of reactionaries in this field have rejected realism in art, and call for art’s independence of reality, proclaiming the "boundless freedom" of artistic creativity, which to them, for all intents and purposes, means the artist’s right to reject truthful portrayal of life, and extol fierce anti-realism. Propagation of antirealism goes hand in hand with the deliberate neglect of the people’s life and the issues central to it in reactionary currents of bourgeois art, with the departure into the realm of psychopathology, a belittling of humanist ideas and man himself and a rejection of the artist’s high calling. The French film-critic, Henri Agel, for instance, maintains that man is an imperfect being grovelling around on all fours in an unstable world: he would also have us believe that man should depict himself not at the moment of his greatness but at the moment of depression and despair, at times when doubts call in question the very worth of his soul. The anti-realism inherent in bourgeois art can often appear in “milder” forms as well: an artist may present us with pictures drawn from life, but see his task to lie not in a truthful reproduction of a phenomenon, but merely in the assertion of his own subjective view of what he is depicting. This approach demands that art should not "analyse and explain", but rather depict the world as the artist sees it, regardless of whether his vision corresponds to life’s objective truth. If such prescriptions are followed, then art may look even realistic, but it would in fact be no more than an imitation of realism, for such art is essentially anti-realist, being bereft of principles.

247

p In the well-known Knaurs Lexicon of Modern Art put out in West Germany the concept of realism is analysed at two levels: firstly as the depiction of the external world, and secondly as a specific conception of man’s spiritual life. The former interpretation of realism is typical of impressionism, and the second of cubism. This same dictionary goes on to explain that there exist two types of realism—direct representation of reality and reproduction of the world based mainly on metaphorical and abstract means of expression. That most commonly encountered in modern art is the second type, and the compilers of the lexicon express bewilderment at the fact that it is sometimes referred to as unrealistic. This only goes to show that in this work realism is approached not as a creative method, but merely as a specific system of descriptive means.

p Realism naturally does not shackle itself with any restrictions as regards artistic language: metaphor was used by realist artists on a fairly wide scale in the past, and is indeed used at the present time as well. Yet it is quite clear that to encourage an indiscriminate attitude to means of expression or, on the contrary, a reduction of the essence of modern realism to no more than a specific system of descriptive and expressive means, will lead either to a substitution of realism by an empty shadow of the same, or to an evaporation of realism in artistic endeavours that are not in keeping with its essential nature.

p Vital tasks before Marxist-Leninist aestheticians is a substantiation of the nature of realism, an uncompromising fight against anti-realist phenomena in art and against an attempt to theoretically substantiate anti-realism.

p Meanwhile the struggle against modern anti-realism in certain writings by aestheticians and art historians is sometimes incorrectly viewed as the expression of a more general pattern of development—the struggle between realism and anti-realism that runs, they claim, as a constant thread throughout the history of art. This view is inacceptable in that it contradicts the true significance of 248 the historical process as it affects art. The conception according to which the whole of the history of art is seen as the history of a struggle between two trends or two methods—realism and anti-realism—does not facilitate in any way correct definition of the laws underlying the development of art. It is wrong to attribute features peculiar to one period in the history of art—to be precise modern art—to art as a whole, to the whole history of art.

p Mistaken concepts such as these took shape as a result of a wrong interpretation of the implications of the struggle between materialism and idealism in the history of philosophy. Then comes the question as to whether it is permissible to compare the history of art to the history of philosophy, to draw an analogy between the concepts “idealism” and “materialism” as found in philosophy and art. To do so would in fact be incompatible with the specific nature of art.

p To summarise: realism in its broad sense is the term used to denote a truthful reflection of life. To some extent, embracing a wider or narrower range of life’s phenomena and with varying degrees of penetration all art brings us a truthful reproduction of reality. Viewed in this way realism is something intrinsic to all art.

p Anti-realist elements in art are sometimes found interwoven with important aspects of creativity. The answer to the question as to whether anti-realist trends belong to the sphere of art is a negative one. Yet here a distinction needs to be drawn between anti-realist trends and the concrete practice of creative artists who might adhere to such trends. The creative nature of the artist at times instinctively rebels against anti-realist currents, and in the work of many modernists we do in fact encounter an unusually complex and contradictory process.

p Here three explanations are possible: either anti- realism has a disastrous influence on the artist’s work—his talent deserts him and he ceases to create art; or by virtue of his talent the artist eliminates anti-realist concepts and sets foot on a realist path; or finally—as is most frequently the case—the work of an artist is 249 contradictory and has various sides to it, in other words, the outcome will be an unusual combination of true art and anti-artistic elements.

p The fate of realism in the twentieth century has been and is still being shaped in the struggle against antirealist trends in art (usually bracketed together by the overall term modernism). Despite its relative vagueness, the term is properly suited to designate those phenomena of art in capitalist society which reflect the crisis of bourgeois consciousness and the anti-humanism inherent in that consciousness.

p Marxist analysis of modernist art and criticism of the aesthetic theories that go with it are highly relevant. Every effort to play down the contradictions between realism and modernism, to “enrich” realism with modernism’s artistic revelations and thus bring the two closer together is aimed at forming an aesthetic variety of the "convergence theory", a theory which is no less reactionary and dangerous in the sphere of aesthetics than in any other sphere of ideology.

p The phenomenon of modernism is closely bound up with the disintegration of art in the conditions of capitalist society. Modernism today is of course very different from what it was at the beginning of the century, in the twenties or even somewhat later. These differences are part and parcel of the continuous replacement of one artistic system by another. As mentioned earlier in another connection, abstract or non-representational art was the predominant trend in modernism not so very long ago, yet after only a relatively short time it had run its course, as the expression goes, and was pushed to one side. In the sixties “objects” were again reinstated through socalled Pop-art and Op-art, which were dismissed as "triumph of the hacks" even by Salvador Dali, the leading light of that other modernist trend, surrealism. Yet in practice the difference between the earlier non- representational art of the abstract artists and the reinstated objects of the practitioners of Pop-art and the kineticists was not one of principle. In a certain sense Pop-art, 250 Opart and kineticism are merely abstract art turned inside out. The essense of modernist art lies not simply in the techniques that are intrinsic to it, nor in the expressive means it employs that differ from the language of realist art, but in its specific social and aesthetic implications and its ideology.

p Modernism always meant individualist, anti-popular art; this found expression in, among other things, its allout refusal to concern itself with a broad public, its deliberate orientation towards an “elite”, a "chosen few". Today the anti-popular aspects have been taken to extremes, and even more blatantly than before modernism now stands out as a vehicle of irrationalism, dehumanisation, the Absurd and the rejection of progressive ideas. The ideology of modernism has a disastrous influence on the artist, for it convinces him, to use the words of the British art critic John Berger, that "Culture, Science, Reason—all the values that begin with old capital letters— are assassinated ... in their place are put the superstitions and idols of the commercial Dream Factory”.  [250•*  To inundate the public with these dreams, to kill man’s faith and his reason—such is the social or rather anti-social function of modernism.

p However, the work of several major artists associated with various modernist trends by no means always kept within the scope of these trends and often had far wider implications. The evolution of style and ideas in the work of Paul Eluard, Bertolt Brecht, Johannes Becher, Ferdinand Leger and Pablo Picasso and the course of their careers in art is most revealing and instructive, as indeed is the case with many other artists who were also at one time connected with modernist trends, and then took up a progressive approach.

p Telling criticism of modernist art requires elucidation of the nature and social significance of realism. True art is always realistic but the concept “realism” is a very broad one. As already pointed out, realism is not merely 251 the truthful reproduction of reality which is essential to all true art without exception. The term realism is used to denote a specific historical trend and its creative method. In this sense realism has not of course always existed, but rather it emerged at a certain stage in the development of art. It is possible, indeed necessary, to use the concept realism in its epistemological sense (realism is life’s truth in art). Yet if we go no further, then the aesthetic individuality of concrete historical phenomena in art is lost.

p It would be wrong to place all artistic phenomena under the heading of realism, the specific trend in art which emerged at a given stage in history. In the history of art there have been magnificent works, which were neither anti-realist, nor could be associated with any realist trend. This is why the history of art is not a history of realism, and it also explains why the development of art should not be regarded as nothing more than the history of the various stages of realism. If Classicism and Romanticism be declared stages in the development of realism, this will obscure the essence of these trends and the special qualities that set them apart from other trends in art.

p There are ample grounds for agreeing with those writers who hold that realist traits have always been essential to art. Yet it should be remembered that Realism as a creative method, which has broadened man’s artistic vision of the world to such an extraordinary extent, differs significantly from the artistic trends that went before it. Realism is characterised among other things by art’s liberation from mythological modes of thought, an extraordinary broadening of the sphere of phenomena from real life that come within art’s scope, by social analysis of reality and a special system of artistic techniques and uses of imagery, etc.

p The creative principles intrinsic to realism cannot be reduced to a specific style; equally it would be quite wrong to contrast realist method with an artist’s style or manner of expression. When realism is seen as no more than a specific style characterised simply by a faithfulness to detail, when realism is used to imply merely the 252 reproduction of reality in "forms drawn from life itself", the result is that the concept of realism is impoverished and opportunities for its use of a variety of expressive means narrowed down. Realism is characterised not only by truthful portrayal, but also by a rejection of faithfulness to outward forms of reality, and a variety of stylised means of expression. The essence of realism is brought out not in artistic means, for its goal is the attainment of life’s profound truths. A work of art can appear largely true to life, while its inner essence remains false and distorts reality. On the other hand, objectively faithful reflections of reality can often appear to disregard external resemblances and reject realistic depiction of detail. Yet forms of an artist’s creative work are important in the context of the realist method, and likewise the way in which he employs his images. Realism uses such artistic means and images as correspond most fully to the nature of this trend in art, to the demands of its creative method.

p The fundamental difference between realism and all other creative methods is borne out not only by the choice of phenomena deemed worthy to be the object of portrayal, but also by the character of their artistic expression, the logic of the artistic image’s growth and development, the pattern of action in a work, and by the way in which conflict is resolved. Realism’s profound penetration of life and the variety of phenomena it presents, given consistency, can enable an artist, better than any other creative method, to be objective, to set himself free from illusions, delusions and prejudice. Dostoyevsky’s career as a writer is most revealing in this connection. It was precisely his uncompromising realism, profound understanding of human psychology and faithful adherence to realist method which emerged victorious in the work of this great artist, who succeeded finally in his most outstanding works in tearing himself free from the grip of those reactionary ideas central to his philosophy of life. Yet even a great realist artist, once in the grip of a false world outlook, may often find himself incapable of 253 going beyond the limitations of a false set of ideas when engaged in creative work. Realist method comes up against a false philosophy of life and is not always able to prevail in the clash.

p Soon after the October Revolution John Reed and H.G. Wells visited the Soviet Union. These two major writers were given the opportunity to see revolutionary Russia at her supreme moment of greatness. Reed saw ten days that shook the world, the beginning of a new historical era, the dawn of a magnificent future. Wells, though a writer who excelled in the fantastic and thought up a war of the worlds, a time-machine, voyages to other planets, proved unable to envisage the grandeur of the revolutionary changes to come and only saw Russia in the shadows. Reed’s emotional involvement was out of Well’s reach. The latter’s false world outlook presented in this particular case an insurmountable obstacle to the realistic reflection of reality.

p Socialist realism is organically linked with the Marxist-Leninist world outlook. . The socialist world outlook equips the artist with an understanding of the inner meaning of historical events, knowledge of prospects for future development. This world outlook lends clear precision to his ideological stand. Alexei Tolstoy wrote: "I cannot open my eyes to the world before my whole consciousness has been filled with the idea of that world: then the world appears before me as meaningful and possessed of a sense of purpose. I, a Soviet writer, am gripped by the idea of the formation and building of a new world. This is what opens my eyes. I behold images of the world, understand their significance, what links them together, their relationship to me and mine to them.”  [253•* 

p Fundamental to the method of socialist realism is the principle of consistent pursuit of life’s truth, the concrete depiction of reality with its historical implications. The artist who uses the socialist-realist method cannot 254 confine himself to passive reflection of life, he has to involve himself actively in life, help his people through his art to build the new society. Socialist art is called upon to raise the curtain upon the world of tomorrow, and to this end it must depict life in its revolutionary development. Gorky maintained that the artist should embrace three realities—past, present and future—and that he has to be able to view the present from the standpoint of the future. This need for the artist to perceive and depict life in its revolutionary development Gorky appreciated and defined as the revolutionary principle of the age. In order to keep abreast of these objectives the socialistrealist method demands of the artist profound knowledge of the life of his contemporaries, and a clear understanding of the historical creativity of the masses.

p Truthful reflection of life, active involvement in it and portrayal of life in its revolutionary development are all features we encounter in realist art of the past. Moussorgsky was right when he stated that an artist cannot help but sing of the future for that future lives within him. The socialist-realist method is rooted in the traditions of that realism, and at the same time it enriches and develops those traditions to meet the needs of present-day socialist reality. Yet the art of socialist realism embraces not merely the experience of the realist art of the past, but also the progressive traditions inherent in other artistic trends. Another of the features essential to the socialist-realist method is revolutionary romanticism, understood as a specific artistic principle; this is a feature drawn in large measure from the art of revolutionary romanticism. However, socialist realism is fundamentally different from the realism of the past. It incorporates new features and traits stemming from art’s new approach to the real world. There are no grounds for accepting the viewpoint that the socialist-realist method can be divided into two parts as it were, although this approach has gained a good number of followers. They divide the socialist-realist method into .a realist aspect taken from the past and the traditions of the art that has gone before, 255 and a socialist aspect drawn from the innovating spirit of socialist society. The crux of the matter here is that the realist understanding of the real world in socialist art is of quite a different quality from that peculiar to the realism of the past. The concepts “socialist” and “ realism” cannot be regarded as no more than a parallel pair of terms interchangeable with “innovation” and “ tradition”, although their significance does embrace this aspect as well. The main point here is that realism in socialist art represents an entirely new phenomenon, an innovation precisely because it is now socialist.

p These new features of socialist method have been singled out not only by Soviet aestheticians but by admirers of Soviet art abroad as well. Romain Rolland for instance held that the continuation of the realist tradition of Russian nineteenth-century literature in the finest works of Soviet writers was reflected first and foremost in the breadth of vision and objective approach of the new writers, who were reflecting life without distortion and tended to "conceal the artist and reveal the subject of his art”,  [255•*  and in the range of their canvases that depict whole strata of human life. Rolland went on to say that "young Soviet literature gives new life to these fundamental 256 characteristics of great Russian literature of all ages, not merely because it is studying a new subject—the new world born amidst struggle—but also because it throbs with a new spirit—a collective spirit, the tempestuous aspirations that are carrying forward millions of men to the great goals of socialist construction.”

p Creative method in socialist art requires of the artist active commitment, optimism, passionate concern with the building of the new life, while art of the critical- realist school is above all art of protest, opposed to contemporary society and directed not against individual or specific weaknesses of that society, but its very foundations, its essential nature. The emotional power of the art of socialist realism lies in its optimistic, positive approach to life, which shapes the artist’s approach to his portrayal of the new reality and determines his aesthetic and philosophical evaluation of phenomena drawn from life around him. The emotional power of the art of critical realism lies in its negation of the contemporary world, and above all in its condemnation of social injustice. Under capitalism social reality is not only hostile to art, but the artist cannot reconcile himself to bourgeois reality.

p In the art of socialist realism there disappears that gulf between the ideal and the real which characterised the art of the past. Truthfulness in their creative work often led artists of the past to depict various phenomena as outright contradictions of the ideal. Attempts to present the existing way of life as something which corresponded to the ideal led to deviations from the truth, distortion and artistic insincerity. This predicament was the source of tragedy for many artists of the past. A striking example of this is presented by Gogol’s work: the first part of his Dead Souls presents a striking contrast, from both the philosophical and artistic point of view, with the second. In the first the writer paints a profoundly true picture of the contemporary world of landowners and civil servants, and it does not contain one positive character. In the second, where Gogol set himself the task of depicting landowners as positive figures, we find a 257 departure from social and historical truth and the overall tone is false.

p The socialist revolution put an end to the tragic dilemma facing the artists of the past, for it did away with the antagonistic contradiction between the ideal and real life. The socialist-realist artist is inspired by ideals which are, in principle, within man’s grasp in the world in which he finds himself, and which the actual development of socialist society makes possible. This explains why the artist in this context depicts life’s beauty, as he depicts its truth. Or to put it another way, through his affirmation of the ideal the artist naturally and freely expresses life’s truth. In socialist society the attitude of art to life changes: socialist reality in its revolutionary development is upheld as the fullest expression of the beautiful.

p A pivotal creative principle in the art of socialist realism is the focus on the working people carrying out revolution ^:and fighting to build a new social order as the pre-eminent subject. This of course does not mean that every work of art must depict revolutionary change in its immediate manifestations. The range of subjects and ideas to be represented in art is boundless, just as life itself. Socialist art has its large epic canvases and short lyric verses, its tragedy and comedy, its inspired symphonies and light-hearted songs. To use a variation on Voltaire’s maxim—All styles are good save the tiresome kind—it might be said that all subjects are worthwhile and the portrayal of any phenomenon is justified, if the characteristics of the new man are faithfully expressed in the manner of their presentation, and the life of the people thoroughly reflected. The art of socialist realism is first and foremost the artistic chronicle of intense historical development, life and endeavour and the struggle of the revolutionary masses, indeed it is the artistic biography of the people. Socialist-realist method made it possible for the first time in the history of art for the people to emerge as a force that is not only destructive but which can also be creative, the main lever of social progress.

258

p In the light of all this the socialist-realist method makes possible a satisfactory solution to the question as to how best to present the subject of work. In the art of critical realism work emerges as a force hostile to man, to his interests and goals, to his quest for the beautiful. Soviet art presents work as the basic sphere of man’s activity, as a force which brings out man’s creative potential, as a factor which exerts a decisive influence on the formation of his character. Soviet art extols the role of work as creative and ennobling. It upholds it as the perfect expression of the beautiful in life. It was precisely this idea that Gorky had in mind when he said that the essence of the socialist-realist method can be deduced from Engels’ words that being is action.

p The revisionists among aestheticians ignore the qualitative difference between critical and socialist realism, and suggest that the main task of the realist in any conditions is to expose and criticise the existing way of life. In this idea is expressed one of the most widespread and popular of misleading interpretations of the tasks facing the artist: literature has always been and will continue to be critical by its very nature; the artist is called upon to expose the “stains” which sully the new society; in art pessimism is always more important than optimism which is of course always “official” ... and so on and so forth. Such ideas are anti-historical in the extreme. Authors of this stamp are reluctant to accept that pure realism, realism as such, does not exist, and they automatically transfer features of the art of the past to the art of socialist society. Socialist art never turned its back on criticism of shortcomings, but its emotional force has always been and will be directed at upholding and extolling the new life, socialist ideals and communist morality. The socialist-realist method demands portrayal of the whole range of man’s emotions—both joyful and sad—but socialist art always has been and always will be optimistic and full of a zest for life, because socialist society itself is permeated with an inexhaustible faith in life, and in its future.

259

p When explaining the leading role of this positive ideal in the art of socialist realism, Marxist aestheticians refer not only to the correctness but also the indispensability of the critical principle. However, in socialist art it is of a fundamentally different quality, a factor of only secondary importance, which serves to foster man’s positive values in life.

p The new type of relationship between art and reality in the socialist era gives rise to qualitatively new features in realist method. It would be wrong, however, to make of these features a dogma, an unshakeable aesthetic canon. The art of socialist realism cannot be made to order. Socialist realism involves first and foremost rich creative activity, and a correct understanding of it can be gleaned from all the finest works by artists using the wide range of art forms and genres found in socialist art. Socialist realism encompasses the books, plays, films, pictures, sculptures, operas, symphonies that immortalise the men and the mood of great revolutionary events, which made such a tremendous contribution to world art and culture.

p The opponents of socialist realism see its weak point in its supposed tendency to unify artistic creation, suppress artistic individuality and engender monotony. The best refutation of this charge is to be found in concrete works of art. Suffice it to compare for example the work of such outstanding representatives of socialist realism in Soviet literature as Alexei Tolstoy and Fadeyev, Sholokhov and Fedin, Ehrenburg and Gladkov, Tvardovsky, Simonov, Martynov and many many others, for us to appreciate how different these artists are from each other when it comes to their unique individuality, their own particular creative style.

p What do the style, genre, or at times even subjects of Ordeal (Alexei Tolstoy), The Rout (A. Fadeyev), Virgin Soil Upturned (M. Sholokhov), The Storm (I. Ehrenburg) and Cement (F. Gladkov) have in common? A similar situation obtains in other spheres of Soviet art. We find the great Stanislavsky and at his side 260 Nemirovich-Danchenko, Meyerhold and Tairov, Kachalov and Ostuzhev, in the theatre; Gerasimov and lohanson, Saryan and Korin, Yuon and Plastov, Konenkov and Mukhina in the world of fine arts; Prokofiev, Asafiev, Shostakovich, Kabalevsky, Khrennikov and Khachaturyan in music: these figures make up a rich galaxy of artists all possessed of brilliant talent and yet each so different from the other.

p This diversity has also made itself felt in the work of the younger generation of Soviet artists. A unique wealth of creative individuality is represented for example by such names as Aitmatov, Bykov, Zalygin in prose- writing; Narovchatov, Lukonin, Voznesensky and Yevtushenko in poetry, Yefremov, Efros, Lyubimov in the theatre and Chukhrai, Khutsiev and Kulidzhanov in the cinema. Each of these artists has his own vision of the world, his own artistic interests, his own language and style, his own manner of expression: yet they share common principles, a common artistic method. While retaining their individuality in the practice of their art, they are like-minded when it comes to their view of its purpose. The recognition enjoyed by all these widely differing artists shows that the art of socialist realism brings men great artistic joy, not only through its truthful and profoundly artistic reflection of life, but also through its diversity. Socialist realism is a creative method and not a uniform artistic style, in which is found a fixed set of descriptive and expressive means, binding for every artist, as it were.

p Socialist realism is not a dead dogma, but a living growing method for artistic creation. Its advance towards perfection is organically linked with the development of society itself, with those grandiose changes which, the people is now implementing in society. At the same time socialist-realist method not only inspires artistic creation, but is itself enriched by the experience of art itself.

For all this, theoretical discussion aimed at defining and specifying various aspects of the creative method in 261 socialist art can be most instructive. In recent years literary articles have appeared calling for more precise definition of the concepts: "Soviet art", "socialist art", and "the art of socialist realism". In this context socialist art is a wider concept than socialist realism, since it embraces certain artistic phenomena, which, while possessed of socialist implications, are rooted not in a realist understanding of reality, but a romantic one, by way of an example. This means that socialist art can embrace trends which while they share philosophical roots involve different methods, such as socialist realism and socialist romanticism. There are grounds for saying that not all the diverse ideas and artistic techniques in the literature and art of the first years after the revolution could be included in the concept of socialist realism. In the Soviet Republic of the twenties there were several artists who embraced the socialist cause wholeheartedly, but whose support for the revolution was emotional rather than rational. Their works were permeated with democratic ideas and humanist searchings, and they signified an advance in the direction of socialist realism. Yet it is impossible to accept the view that in advanced socialist society there can exist art, which, while socialist in its content and ideas, is not realist when it comes to method. An artist who consistently starts out from a socialist world outlook, gleans his aesthetic ideals from the world around him and correlates these with reality, which means that his creative method will of necessity be realist. The variety of styles and genres found in Soviet art testifies not to diversity of creative method, but on the contrary to rich aesthetic principles rooted in the nature of socialist realism. Indeed in the last decade socialist art has been enriched by a number of remarkable works of art in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, and also by certain works of progressive artists in the capitalist countries. Suffice it to name for example such works by Soviet writers as Simonov’s trilogy about the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) and Aitmatov’s stories Farewell, Gyulsary! and The White Steamer, to make it quite clear that 262 contemporary artistic endeavour is lending new concrete, and historically significant content to the creative principlea of socialist realism, both with regard to style and genre, and that—still more significantly—with reference to these principles Soviet artists have reached a more profound understanding of the historical developments of the present age. The fact that Aitmatov in his story The White Steamer follows principles of artistic composition different from those to be found in Simonov’s trilogy, gives us no ground for associating these writers with different artistic trends and methods. The work of various artists betrays a predilection for various means of expression, it is characterised by a predominance of poetic or prosaic elements (or for that matter romantic ones— to name but another possibility) in the artist’s perception and representation of life, by preoccupation with particular range of phenomena drawn from life: yet none of this reflects socialist realism’s “limitations”, rather it points to the extraordinary breadth of the social and aesthetic opportunities opened up to the artist by the socialist-realist method.